NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M versus NVIDIA NVS 5400M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M and NVIDIA NVS 5400M pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 10 mois plus tard
- 4x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 96
- Environ 74% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 441.6 gflops versus 253.4 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 6% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 35 Watt
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 653 versus 623
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3687 versus 2100
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.572 versus 5.068
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.808 versus 0.635
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.943 versus 11.384
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 39.301 versus 19.696
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1524 versus 1069
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2519 versus 2282
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1524 versus 1069
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2519 versus 2282
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 April 2013 versus 1 June 2012 |
Pipelines | 384 versus 96 |
Performance á point flottant | 441.6 gflops versus 253.4 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 35 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 653 versus 623 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3687 versus 2100 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.572 versus 5.068 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.808 versus 0.635 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.943 versus 11.384 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 39.301 versus 19.696 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1524 versus 1069 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2519 versus 2282 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1524 versus 1069 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2519 versus 2282 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA NVS 5400M
- Environ 15% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 660 MHz versus 575 MHz
- Environ 15% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 10.56 GTexel / s versus 9.2 GTexel / s
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 187 versus 129
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 229.562 versus 151.304
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1652 versus 1426
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1652 versus 1426
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 660 MHz versus 575 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 10.56 GTexel / s versus 9.2 GTexel / s |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 187 versus 129 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 229.562 versus 151.304 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1652 versus 1426 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1652 versus 1426 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M
GPU 2: NVIDIA NVS 5400M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Nom | NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M | NVIDIA NVS 5400M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 653 | 623 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 129 | 187 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3687 | 2100 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.572 | 5.068 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 151.304 | 229.562 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.808 | 0.635 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.943 | 11.384 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 39.301 | 19.696 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1524 | 1069 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1426 | 1652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2519 | 2282 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1524 | 1069 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1426 | 1652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2519 | 2282 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M | NVIDIA NVS 5400M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Fermi |
Nom de code | GK208 | GF108 |
Date de sortie | 1 April 2013 | 1 June 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1443 | 1444 |
Genre | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 889 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 575 MHz | 660 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 441.6 gflops | 253.4 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 96 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 9.2 GTexel / s | 10.56 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 585 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Audio HD reseau 7.1 sur HDMI | ||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | Up to 3840x2160 | |
Soutien du signal sDP 1.2 | Up to 3840x2160 | |
Protection du contenu HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Support du signale LVDS | Up to 1920x1200 | |
Bitstreaming d’audio TrueHD et DTS-HD | ||
Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | 28.8 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Configuration standard de la mémoire | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Blu-Ray 3D Support | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 |